It is the Canada First defence strategy, and it assumes that it is embedded in a broader kind of Government of Canada approach. That is, CFDS doesn't say that we're going to go out and do everything all the time. It says that we have to be ready to look at this full spectrum of operations. Where we go, why we go, when, and what level of intensity is defined by the Government of Canada saying that this is a priority for us, and obviously it's a foreign policy priority in which we'd like you to engage. CFDS is not an overarching “Government of Canada, where will we be, everywhere, all the time”. It tells the defence department and the Canadian Forces what they have to get themselves ready for. Obviously, CFDS also has a capability part of it, which is about modernizing the forces to be able to do that.
I don't know if that's a convoluted response or not, but this is all about us and the CF being ready to respond to the Government of Canada's desire for us to deploy somewhere, and that's whether it's at home or abroad, and that's informed heavily by Foreign Affairs.
On peacekeeping, again, I would like to have one of my military colleagues at the table to kind of bring real veracity to this. But I think I'm not incorrect in saying that if a soldier or an airman or a sailor is trained for full-spectrum operations, which is everything from war fighting to engaging in complex and delicate failed and fragile state-building exercises, that is the same set of skills and techniques that one needs to be able to do peacekeeping.
Kerry can talk to the missions, but that is why the folks we do have deployed into UN operations around the world go through the same training system. They have a full spectrum of ability to be able to go into any sort of setting, and that relates to some of the questions about cultural sensitivity training and all sorts of other things.
I don't know, Kerry, if you want to talk to UN things a bit.